Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary economics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was nomination withdrawn JulesH 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 

Binary Economics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The bulk of this article is bizarre original research that is totally non-encyclopedic and violates WP:NPOV Bigdaddy1981 06:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Per below, I'll withdraw my AfD nomination and add a Disputed tag to the article. Bigdaddy1981 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A google search shows that this topic is notable in nature. It would be wise to rewrite this article. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Which part of this is "original research"? The article has more sourcing and bibliography than most I see.  I think that all three of the reasons cited in the nomination (OR, POV, "non-encyclopedic") are inapplicable.  Perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT is what is actually meant. Mandsford 11:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No what is meant is that this article is nonsense. Please, remember to assume good faith when considering AfDs. Bigdaddy1981 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete sorry for pointing this out but as an economist with a master's degree I simply cannot refrain from commenting on this. If Wikipeida wishes to keep incoherent blatant nonsense that no economist with respect for himself would ever waste a second on just because of the disturbing fact that these ideas actually have followers then I sincerely do believe that we have reached a point where we must reconsider if we are the free encyclopedia or the free collection of lunatic ideas with no relation to the real world. Sorry if I'm trolling, I don't normally talk like that here but I feel quite strongly about this. The critics of economics already got to screw up the Economics article, this is where I draw the line. MartinDK 12:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs attention from an expert on the subject for possible NPOV concerns -- it should stress more strongly that this is not a mainstream economics theory, and present a more balanced view of the criticisms that (presumably) have lead to it not being adopted by mainstream economists.  I'm also a little concerned about the reliability of some of the sources, for instance Rutgers Law Journal is a student publication, not the peer-reviewed publication it sounds like it should be, and may therefore be somewhat misleading with respect to its authority.  Also, too many of the current sources were written by the originator of the theory: a broader mix of sources is required.  But none of these is a good enough reason to delete the article.  There are reliable sources here.  Most of the article is based on content in Kelso's professionally published books.  Other content is based on articles in the Journal of Socio-Economics.  This isn't OR. JulesH 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I generally agree with JulesH.  The article seems to make out its own case for notability, and nothing about this looks like original research in the sense we use it: it was not invented on Wikipedia.  POV issues are not grounds for deleting this. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Reasons stated above. CraigMonroe 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and I'd like to address MartinDK's point about Binary Economics. Of course he's right, no respecting economist would take binary economics seriously.  But I wonder, should we also delete the article on heliocentrism?  Of course not, because it's still a term that may be referenced, and people should be able to turn to an encyclopedia to find out what that term meant.  Exactly the same thing here.  Binary economics, along with the reasons that it is not taken serionsly, should be clearly explained.  We do readers a far better service by accurately characterizing bad science as bad, rather than by simply pretending it does not exist.  We can easily do that here. --JayHenry 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if it is to be kept as a curiosity as heliocentrism then it should be rewritten to make it clear that this is a fringe theory with no acceptance amongst professional economists. At the moment, it reads as POV gibberish. Bigdaddy1981 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Then add a criticism section. As it stands, AFD is wholly innappropriate. CraigMonroe 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly my point. It should be rewritten to make it clear that it is a fringe theory with no acceptance amongst professional economists. --JayHenry 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have an economics degree. This article isn't economics, it's a thinly veiled rationalisation of the Islamic prohibition on lending money for interest, which is in itself one of the main reasons for the failure of Islamic countries to thrive .  If it's kept it has to be rewritten to reflect this as JayHenry points out.  This is religion, it's NOT economics. Nick mallory 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about this Islamic thing? Just cause you have a degree in economics evidently means you don't want to cite the fact that Christianity prohibited usury also.  Lets try not to judge an entire civilization on the fact that they don't lend with interest.   Rhetth 02:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me show you how easy it is to debunk this. From the article: This supply of interest-free loans for the spreading of productive capacity, as well as for environmental and public capital, would be a move towards using a 100% of banking reserves. Thus the banking system would not be continually creating money but would be confined to lending (with permission) depositors’ money and the bank’s own capital
 * Amazing!! First of all they manage to claim that banks would not create money yet they would lend out no less than 100% of their reserves thus creating lots of money (100% in fact). In fact they would create more money that banks do in Western capitalist countries. To claim that they would not continually create money suggest that deposits would not increase or decrease over time. In other words the world would be static and nothing would ever change over time. In response to this they will claim that creating money actually means creating profit (another sign that they don't even understand the terminology they use) but then why are they allowed to charge "fees"? It just makes no friggin' sense. Not only this but they would lend out 100% of their reserves. Banks in countries with efficient supervision of the stability of the financial sector (most Western countries) do not allow banks to lend out more than usually around 80% of their reserves. Why? Imagine what happens when people come to the bank to withdraw their deposits... If rumour spreads that the bank does in fact not have the money it generates what is known as a bank run or quite simply panic where people rush to withdraw their deposits. Result: complete collapse of the financial sector. This is something that the Indonesians should already be aware of after the collapse in 1997-98. All that without resorting to use of algebra which these people hate so much because it allows us to debunk their theories and expose them as little more than political propaganda in disguise. And trust me people... that is exactly what this is. I understand the part about educating people like we do with the flat earth theory article or the many creationist articles here but the article should at least point out that this is politics disguised as science. MartinDK 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

MartinDK, It is no conflict of interest if the writer of an article is in the best position to write an article. It is rather important in these matters that people should know what they are talking about. Perhaps you can suggest the name of somebody who has unequivocably read all the books and papers. As regards 'origianal research' is The Cpaitalist Manifesto (1958) 'original research' and therefore to be rejected?. Or The New Capitalists (1961)? Or Two-Factor Theory (1967)? Or Democracy and Economic Power (1987). Or Binary Economics (1999)? Or Seven Steps to Justice (2002)? Or Capital Homsesteading (2002/4? Or The Modern Universal Paradigm (2007)? Or The Universal Partadigm (2007)?  Published works are published works and if publication is grounds for supppression then all books can be suppressed.  Book burners, rejoice! I also notice that you are trying to suppress any reference to a very clear account of binary economics at www.binaryeconomics.net.  I invite all people concerned with this matter to go to that website before they take any decision. What do you mean by "self-published sources?"  All the books referred to above have publishers. And why do you attack the Kelsos?  Is it a crime to simply propose that workers should own shares in corporations?  Is it a crime to want to see everybody owning shares and to see everybody having some form of productive capacity? Is it a crime to want to use interest free loans for prodcutive capacity (so that the effective cost is halved?
 * Comment There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand Binary Economics and those who don't ~ Infrangible 10:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Laughing Hey, that's pretty good. Almost a 1010.
 * Strong Keep Janos Abel invited me to write the original article which he kindly put up.  As it developed eighty two book/paper references were included (and about another fifty published paper references could be included). However, apparently because binary economics is a new paradigm (or, simply, because some people just do not like it)attempt is being made to suppress it which has not been done for other schools of economics.
 * Moreover, if a Western university had been the first to take up binary economics there would have been no objection but, because it is an Indonesian one (even though it is second in prestige in the whole of Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous nation)there is an implicit assumption of cultural and intellectual inferiority.
 * I apologise for not using my password but I am rushing to make sudden arrangements to go to Indonesia and do not have time to find it.
 * Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com
 * I should have added that a clear, referenced account of binary economics can now be found at www.binaryeconomics.net and much information/papers etc at www.cesj.org and www.kelsoinstitute.org
 * Rodney Shakespeare.
 * Thanks for openly admitting your conflict of interest and use of self-published sources. I have added the appropriate tag to the article and I will be removing the links to your website as spam. Also, I do invite you to respond to my debunking of your monetary theory rather than assume that I hold bias against Indonesians (which I don't). Sigh... Now that the main contributor to the article have admitted that much of the "research" used on the article is in fact original research by him and his colleagues could we agree on what OR is? MartinDK 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, The Kelso Institute is not the reliable source that it sounds like. It is a website run by Patricia Kelso, the wife of the originator of this theory. MartinDK 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Add a criticism section with sources. Even if wholly innaccurate they can place the theory out there since it is sourced. CraigMonroe 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two peer reviewed sources. The rest are working papers and other self-published sources. Anyone can write a working paper or a book. MartinDK 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Two peer reviewed articles is more than enough under Wiki standards. Not to mention, a book would also qualify. You disagree witht eh topic. ... so instead of discussing it here (the AFD nom was withdrawn) spend the time to write a criticism section in the article so people actually know this is an unsupported theory and why it is wrong. CraigMonroe 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Shakespeare

MartinDK with regard to your comments on monetary theory. I am sorry but you do not understand the subject. The 100% reserves proposal (Friedman, Fisher, Simons and others)STOPS the banks creating money out of nothing (they have to use depositiors' money or their own capital). There is then a new supply of central bank-issued interest-free loans going THROUGH the banks (i.e. they administer it and charge administration cost). The central bank intersst-free supply is directed (by the banks) at the development and spreading of productive capacity and the associated consuming capacity. It cannot be inflationary because, over time, all the lent money (secured on productive capacity) is repaid and cancelled. It is not helpful when people like yourself attempt to put out gross distortions about a subject because they do not understand what has been clearly written.
 * Let me just briefly respond to this. The 100% reserve requirement proposed by Friedman et.al. does indeed stop the banks from creating money since they cannot lend out what has been deposited. That is not what is in the article. According to the article banks would lend out what has been deposited as well as its own capital in addition to loans tunneled through the private banks at 0% interest. Thus they would be creating money. What you should have written was that due to property concerns, banks should not create money out of what, according to the supports of this theory, is not the bank's property but the depositor's property. This is an old and discarded idea but it is not original research and is generally considered one of Friedman's oddest ideas (he had quite a few of those). You seem to misunderstand how banks create money. But I will leave it at that since this really didn't belong on this AfD and I should have known this would happen so I will just leave it at that. I give up. MartinDK 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for saying that the 100% requirement as proposed by Friedman et al. stops the banks from creating new money. We are making some, although slow, progress. But you still have not grasped that what is proposed is the use of existing money (deposits -- with permission -- and bank capital) plus loans (from the central bank) which start as newly-created money but are then directed solely at the development and spreading of productive capacity and are then repaid and CANCELLED. The overall effect is that, over time, there need be no overall increase in the money supply and, due to the huge diminution in the role of interest (as opposed to administration cost) no continual pressure to increase the money supply (which is what happens at present thereby causing continual inflation). I also note that you say the 100% reserve is not an original idea and has been discarded. As a separate idea it may have been discarded but binary economics links it with the central bank-issued interest-free loan supply for the development and spreading of productive capacity -- and that is one of the original aspects of binary economics. But, of course, as soon as I use the word "original" up jumps the I Don't Like it Brigade to twist the meaning of Wikipedia's rules on the meaning on originality to try to stop the whole article. Also it would be generally preferable if people who know nothing about binary economics did not pontificate on content (as opposed to matters of style etc). Rodney Shakespeare.


 * KEEP Binary Economics addresses issues missed by mainstream economics and is a valuable addition for this reason (despite being a work in progress). The fate of LTCM is only one glaring example of the need for improvement in that which is approved by mainstream economics. Read Keyne's essay The Future (Essays in Persuasion) if you want an eye-opener of a mainstream economist coming clean.
 * STRONG KEEP As an author of 8 books on economic questions I am opposed to the idea of deleting the article on binary economics and so depriving institutions and good causes the possibilityof low or no interest loans. I therefore vote STRONG KEEP. Those who oppose the principles of BE are simply ignorant of its workings or have vested interests for its suppression in the name of the establishment and powerful corporations. Yhe time has come for experimentation and alternative economic theories in the name of social justice and a more equitable world in both north and south. Robert Corfe robertcorfe@tiscli.co.uk
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.